Jon McLaughlin wants to show Peter Taylor that he has matured into the role of City’s number one.

Taylor brings his Gillingham side to Valley Parade tomorrow – the first time he has been back to the club since stepping down as manager three years ago.

McLaughlin and James Hanson are the only survivors from his spell in the hot-seat, which was a frustrating period for all concerned.

Taylor gave McLaughlin his big break as City’s first-choice goalkeeper at the age of 23 and awarded him a long-term contract. But then he dropped him for three months after recruiting Lenny Pidgeley.

McLaughlin is looking forward to tomorrow’s reunion with his former boss and the chance to demonstrate how far he has come since that time.

“It will be good to see Peter Taylor again personally and it will be interesting to see the reaction he gets coming back,” said the Bantams keeper.

“A lot of the players had an up and down time (when Taylor was in charge) but that wasn’t due to him as a person. The situation of the club at the time wasn’t easy.

“I was a very young goalkeeper and hadn’t been a professional for long. But he had the belief in me to make me his number one and give me a long contract.

“I definitely learned a lot from him and his experience from the level that he had coached and managed at.

“I know myself that I have changed a lot since then. You grow with the position and with your experience.

“I might have had the ability back then but a lot of things do change as you play more. I’m sure he will see a bit of a difference – at least I hope he does.”

Taylor, who was in charge at Valley Parade for 53 games, returned to Gillingham five months ago to replace Martin Allen.

Back-to-back wins have lifted them out of immediate danger in League One and they sit directly below City in mid-table on goal difference.

After Tuesday’s much-needed victory at Colchester, the Bantams have the chance to inflict further damage on another team beneath them.

McLaughlin said: “It’s a really critical period. Every game between now and the end of the season is important but especially these ones when you’re playing teams involved in the same battle.

“It’s the old cliché of the six pointers but it is relevant at the moment. If you win the games, you make progress and stop them from gaining any ground – and that can relieve a lot of pressure.

“We’ve been relying on other people’s results for quite a long while with the long run of draws we had without a win. We were lucky not to lose a lot of ground and get sucked in.

“So it’s important that we continue to address that ourselves as quickly as possible.

“We’ve got to take inspiration from the likes of Sheffield United. In the space of five weeks they have changed themselves from almost bankers for relegation to really pushing for that play-off spot.

“That’s how quickly it can change. We did it ourselves last year with an incredible run.”

McLaughlin insists City’s belief was never shaken as the games clocked up without a win. But inevitably confidence levels dipped as they slipped away from the play-off picture and found themselves being pulled towards the battle for survival.

He said: “There’s so much in the psychology of football. Confidence breeds more confidence. One result leads into another and you take that momentum forward. It’s so true.

“It should just be down to two teams on the day and whoever has got the better quality wins the game. But you see it so often that the confidence is the major factor.

“If you’ve got a true belief within the team and you trust the players around, then you can go a long way – and we still have that.

“We haven’t doubted our ability but obviously a team at the top of the table aren’t as worried as taking chances or taking risks to win games. Those nearer the bottom are well aware of the fact that mistakes are compounded a lot more.

“You’ve got to try and over-ride that and do whatever it takes to go out there and play to the best of your ability.

“There’s more than enough games left for us and we’ve got enough quality to play these teams and take maximum points from them.”

* Don’t miss the T&A on Saturday for an exclusive interview with former City boss Peter Taylor ahead of his return to Valley Parade as manager of Gillingham

Comments (11)

*
I wonder what the reception for Taylor ( Another Turnip?), will be on Saturday.?
*
Not unlike the reception for the 'Rov'Ram' manager I expect.!
*
I feel Keeper Jon owes his career to Stuart McCall. Who watched him at his home town Harrogate. Then brought him to VP.
*
However, both crowd and team must not let their dis-like of these people, affect their play. Clear your minds, and focus on your game.
*

*
I wonder what the reception for Taylor ( Another Turnip?), will be on Saturday.?
*
Not unlike the reception for the 'Rov'Ram' manager I expect.!
*
I feel Keeper Jon owes his career to Stuart McCall. Who watched him at his home town Harrogate. Then brought him to VP.
*
However, both crowd and team must not let their dis-like of these people, affect their play. Clear your minds, and focus on your game.
*Freddy

We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers!

We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers!Stafford Heginbantam

Freddy wrote:
*
I wonder what the reception for Taylor ( Another Turnip?), will be on Saturday.?
*
Not unlike the reception for the 'Rov'Ram' manager I expect.!
*
I feel Keeper Jon owes his career to Stuart McCall. Who watched him at his home town Harrogate. Then brought him to VP.
*
However, both crowd and team must not let their dis-like of these people, affect their play. Clear your minds, and focus on your game.
*

Thanks Freddy. You call Peter Taylor a Turnip, but there are people on this message board who think of Phil Parkinson in the same way. That's their way of judging individuals. And they are quite clear about that. You've just read that Jonny Mac and James Hanson are the only survivors from Peter Taylor's time, so nobody in the team is going to dislike him. On the contrary, they will recognise what he has achieved in his career. It's important that you keep your mind clear too, Freddy.

[quote][p][bold]Freddy[/bold] wrote:
*
I wonder what the reception for Taylor ( Another Turnip?), will be on Saturday.?
*
Not unlike the reception for the 'Rov'Ram' manager I expect.!
*
I feel Keeper Jon owes his career to Stuart McCall. Who watched him at his home town Harrogate. Then brought him to VP.
*
However, both crowd and team must not let their dis-like of these people, affect their play. Clear your minds, and focus on your game.
*[/p][/quote]Thanks Freddy. You call Peter Taylor a Turnip, but there are people on this message board who think of Phil Parkinson in the same way. That's their way of judging individuals. And they are quite clear about that. You've just read that Jonny Mac and James Hanson are the only survivors from Peter Taylor's time, so nobody in the team is going to dislike him. On the contrary, they will recognise what he has achieved in his career. It's important that you keep your mind clear too, Freddy.Peter300

Stafford Heginbantam wrote:
We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers!

So if you let one bad performance keep you away, you are not much of a follower are you? Presumably you have seen some good managers? Anyway Gillingham have no chance of winning because you say Peter Taylor is a poor manager.

[quote][p][bold]Stafford Heginbantam[/bold] wrote:
We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers![/p][/quote]So if you let one bad performance keep you away, you are not much of a follower are you? Presumably you have seen some good managers? Anyway Gillingham have no chance of winning because you say Peter Taylor is a poor manager.Peter300

I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that

I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for thatwhisky1

whisky1 wrote:
I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that

Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor.

Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch.

Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful.

An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.

[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote:
I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that[/p][/quote]Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor.
Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch.
Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful.
An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.Michael Clayton

Stafford Heginbantam wrote:
We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers!

After that appalling performance Taylor ended up on eBay. Much to the amusement of football fans up & down the country,

[quote][p][bold]Stafford Heginbantam[/bold] wrote:
We must not lose this one.
Following an abysmal performance at Vale Park, I vowed never to watch City again, as long as Taylor was our Manager, and in my 57 years of following City, I have seen some poor managers![/p][/quote]After that appalling performance Taylor ended up on eBay. Much to the amusement of football fans up & down the country,kettlebantam

Peter Taylor is trying to make a living as best he can. The same as our own Phil Parkinson so let us show him some respect and lets have none of the Turnip stuff PLEASE. City supporters should rise above that. In regard to Jon Mac he is a Good Goal keeper who will only get better City are lucky to have him

Peter Taylor is trying to make a living as best he can. The same as our own Phil Parkinson so let us show him some respect and lets have none of the Turnip stuff PLEASE. City supporters should rise above that. In regard to Jon Mac he is a Good Goal keeper who will only get better City are lucky to have himlawsonio123

whisky1 wrote:
I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that

Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor.

Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch.

Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful.

An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.

Just to prove figures can say anything on your basis assuming your figures are correct as I don't know. Parkinson has lost 51.5% of his 99 un-drawn games Taylor lost 53.5% of his 39 and extrapolating the result Taylor would have lost 7.6 games if we had kept him for 99. I for one am happy that we got rid of him when we did.

[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote:
I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that[/p][/quote]Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor.
Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch.
Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful.
An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.[/p][/quote]Just to prove figures can say anything on your basis assuming your figures are correct as I don't know. Parkinson has lost 51.5% of his 99 un-drawn games Taylor lost 53.5% of his 39 and extrapolating the result Taylor would have lost 7.6 games if we had kept him for 99. I for one am happy that we got rid of him when we did.yorkiebantam

whisky1 wrote: I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that

Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor. Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch. Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful. An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.

Just to prove figures can say anything on your basis assuming your figures are correct as I don't know. Parkinson has lost 51.5% of his 99 un-drawn games Taylor lost 53.5% of his 39 and extrapolating the result Taylor would have lost 7.6 games if we had kept him for 99. I for one am happy that we got rid of him when we did.

The purpose of my post was not to compare like for like. Unfortunately, I found myself having to do so in order to defend Taylor and was reacting to the idea that Taylor would be greeted in the same way as Steve Evans. I thought this unfair. At very least, Taylor is a decent human being.

As I mentioned. it is all about perception at very least the man deserves to be judged on his managerial record.

Aside from the previous figures I quoted, I can also add that Taylor's points per match (average) is higher than Parkinson's and that his winning games ratio is also higher. However, it is also true that Parkinson has achieved more results (inclusing draws) than Taylor.

Fair enough, we can extrapolate data if we wish to support an argument with statistics. However, this was not an attempt to prove the merits of one manager over the other.Like you, I favour Parkinson, but that is irrelevant in this sense.

It was about trying to apply balance. Again, I use the word 'perception'.

[quote][p][bold]yorkiebantam[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: I suspect the reception will be pretty muted. PT was obviously a decent man but struggled to make an impact. The contrast with PP is striking. Given his pedigree and reputation I was surprised how one dimensional his approach was but he has obviously steadied the ship at the Gills so credit for that[/p][/quote]Agreed. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to make a comparison between the reception for Steve Evans and that expected for Peter Taylor. Evans has disgraced himself whilst deemed as successful on the pitch. Taylor appeared to conduct himself properly whilst deemed as being unsuccessful. An interesting fact is that Parkinson and Taylor has/have each lost three more games than they have won (overall) : Parkinson 48/51 Taylor 18/21. It is all about perception.[/p][/quote]Just to prove figures can say anything on your basis assuming your figures are correct as I don't know. Parkinson has lost 51.5% of his 99 un-drawn games Taylor lost 53.5% of his 39 and extrapolating the result Taylor would have lost 7.6 games if we had kept him for 99. I for one am happy that we got rid of him when we did.[/p][/quote]The purpose of my post was not to compare like for like. Unfortunately, I found myself having to do so in order to defend Taylor and was reacting to the idea that Taylor would be greeted in the same way as Steve Evans. I thought this unfair. At very least, Taylor is a decent human being.
As I mentioned. it is all about perception at very least the man deserves to be judged on his managerial record.
Aside from the previous figures I quoted, I can also add that Taylor's points per match (average) is higher than Parkinson's and that his winning games ratio is also higher. However, it is also true that Parkinson has achieved more results (inclusing draws) than Taylor.
Fair enough, we can extrapolate data if we wish to support an argument with statistics. However, this was not an attempt to prove the merits of one manager over the other.Like you, I favour Parkinson, but that is irrelevant in this sense.
It was about trying to apply balance. Again, I use the word 'perception'.Michael Clayton